After the previous Canadian County Sheriff retired, two veterans of the department are running to be the successor. The race is between Joshua Moore, a self-described constitutional conservative who worked as a patrol sergeant and an investigator at the Canadian County Sheriff’s Office, and Chris West, the present Canadian County Undersheriff.

Moore has received the endorsement of Sheriff Richard Mack of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officer’s Association as well as the Gun Owners of America. His primary campaign issue is to ban civil asset forfeiture. On the other hand, West boasts about his ‘tough on crime’ credentials, touts endorsements from Oklahoma bureaucrats and law enforcement officials, and promises more enforcement power if he is elected.

The stark differences between these two candidates became abundantly clear during a recent exchange regarding federal partnerships with the county Sheriff’s office. Moore pointed out that the Sheriff’s office is working with the federal government, bemoaning the cost and constitutional questions stemming from the agreement. West confirmed that Moore’s accusation was indeed true, but tried to downplay the potential harm involved with the arrangement.

The Mustang Timesreported on the race that will ultimately be decided by Canadian County voters on June 28:

“It is my understanding, the Sheriff’s Office currently has five deputies reporting to agencies such as the FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, and the US Marshals, paid for out of the Sheriff’s Office budget,” Moore said. “The extra constitutional actions that have been taken by extra constitutional law enforcement agencies, such as these, are one reason that I disapprove of the Sheriff’s Office current practice of assigning Deputies to these federal law enforcement agencies.”

West confirmed that the Sheriff’s Office does have five Deputies that work with federal agencies, but said he believes it benefits the county tremendously and strongly disagreed with Moore.

“He (Moore) doesn’t understand the benefit of collaborating with these other agencies,” West said.

West must think that his constituents have been living under a rock during the last ten years. He must think that they are unaware of the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, Snowden’s NSA leaks, the menacing Drone program, TSA molesting people at airports, a near $20 trillion debt, and a whole host of unconstitutional infringements by the federal government. To anyone that has been paying attention, the idea that the feds are helping keep us safe is a foolhardy notion.

On the other hand, Moore paints the accurate picture of what federal and local agreements are: unnecessary infringements that jeopardize the independence of a free state. Oklahoma has the capacity to defend itself on its own. It doesn’t need the federal government to hold its hands to be able to keep law and order. If anything, Oklahoma resources are needlessly co-opted by the federal government for its own agenda through these agreements.

West’s true motives were made clear when he attempted to justify the use of civil asset forfeiture by law enforcement. From the Mustang Times article:

West said civil asset forfeiture is a very important tool for law enforcement agencies to keep criminals from having the resources they need.

“We are not ‘ignoring’ the Constitution,” West said.

“This is a practice that deprives criminals… We use the drug money, vehicles and other property from criminals to fight other criminal activity to protect our citizens. There is due process for individuals to appeal this if their assets are seized. This entire process is transparent and overseen by the courts.”

West was being far from honest in his appraisal of the civil asset forfeiture laws that are in effect in Oklahoma. The state was given a terrible D- rating by the Institute for Justice for their restrictive civil asset forfeiture laws in 2015, primarily because law enforcement only must “prove a property’s connection to a crime by a preponderance of the evidence in order to forfeit it” and that law enforcement was “only required to maintain an inventory of seized and forfeited property, providing little to no transparency.” Oklahomans are presumed guilty until proven innocent in the court of law because of these policies that West champions so forcefully.

This county Sheriff’s race illustrates the battle for freedom that is taking place at every level of government. Although the Tenth Amendment Center primarily promotes state nullification, the principles of nullification can extend downward. By electing a Constitutional Sheriff or liberty-minded members for your local city council or county commission, it can make all the difference in keeping your community free.

In the Canadian County Sheriff’s race, it is already helping by getting the word out about harmful federal partnerships and raising awareness about civil asset forfeiture. And with the drug war falling to pieces, tough-on-crime rhetoric does not resonate with the general public as it once did. Constitutional candidates have a great chance of winning these days, and with the side effect of informing and galvanizing the public by running, they really can’t lose!

]]>26396County Sheriffs Must Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitutionhttp://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/05/county-sheriffs-must-preserve-protect-and-defend-the-constitution/
Sun, 08 May 2016 16:38:48 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=26031Martin Luther King once said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Every county Sheriff takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, but without an understanding of the Constitution and the principles upon which is was written, it is impossible for a Sheriff to honor their oath.

When a county Sheriff enforces an unjust law, they must first violate the oath that they have taken to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

The reason elected officials are required to take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution is because it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any time that a rule, regulation, code, ordinance or statute violates the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the Sheriff to support the Constitution and to refuse to comply with laws that are unconstitutional.

This time, it’s Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers in the state of Indiana, who declared on WNIT’sPolitically Speaking that he will “disregard” any executive orders Obama makes that require firearm registration.

“If President Obama today said, ‘I’m creating an executive order that all sheriffs and police chiefs around this nation need to start registering firearms,’ I will disregard it,” he stated.

According to InfoWars.com, when “Rogers was questioned on how he can hold these unruly views and be reconciled with the oath he took for office. So, he repeated his oath, saying it is to defend the United States Constitution and the Indiana constitution to the best of his ability.”

However, it’s not just executive orders concerning firearm registration that Rogers has spoken out against; in 2013, he made similar statements on any possible gun confiscation.

While we should applaud such men like Rogers for their fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law, it would be imprudent for us to simply hope that sheriffs will do the same, or that these types of men will always be in that particularly office, as we know from the past that other counties are not so lucky.

We cannot rely only on voluntary anti-commandeering efforts by a select few brave enough to take a stand. Only through Second Amendment Preservation Acts (SAPA) can we ensure that local law enforcement will definitely not aid the feds in enforcing unconstitutional gun control laws. This way, safeguards for our right to keep and bear arms will be permanently erected and remain in place even as those who hold office come and go.

Without the cooperation of the states, any federal gun control law crafted in D.C. will be delivered to the states dead on arrival.

Let us build a foundation for our gun rights, present and future, on solid ground! Contact your local legislator and tell them to introduce SAPA today, then spread the word!

]]>24042Local Community Rejects Federal Militarization of Police, Shows Path Forwardhttp://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/10/local-community-rejects-federal-militarization-of-police-shows-path-forward/
Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:55:43 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=24016BURLINGTON, Vt. – The Burlington police department unilaterally decided to sever ties with a U.S. Department of Defense program that allows law enforcement agencies to procure surplus military equipment, freeing the department from one significant form of federal influence and control.

A Burlington TV station reported on the move, saying the department had obtained two night vision devices through the program before deciding not to participate.

“There are times when military-style equipment is essential for public safety, but they are very rare,” Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo said. “We have the resources to handle all but the most inconceivable public safety scenarios. Amassing a worst-case scenario arsenal of military equipment results in officers seeing everyday policework through a military lens. When I realized what a small role the military played in equipping our police, I concluded it was better to return the items.”

FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY

Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military grade weapons, including automatic assault rifles, body armor and mine resistant armored vehicles – essentially unarmed tanks. Police departments can even get their hands on military helicopters and other aircraft.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) runs the “Homeland Security Grant Program,” which in 2013 gave more than $900 million in counterterrorism funds to state and local police. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”

COMMAND AND CONTROL

“Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the Founders,” Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said, echoing del Pozo’s thoughts. “They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’”

In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”

By stripping state and local police of this military-grade gear and requiring them to report on their acquisition and use, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships.

THE WAY FORWARD

Very few police chiefs have the moral clarity demonstrated by del Pozo. We can’t rely on local police departments to turn their backs on all the free gear dangled in front of them by the feds. The vast majority won’t – not on their own.

But state and local governments can stop militarization of their police departments through laws and ordinances.

Earlier this year, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill into law requiring law enforcement agencies to get approval from a local government body before applying for military equipment. This creates a transparent process and gives area residents an avenue to stop militarization altogether through local action.

Montana took things a step further, passing a law prohibiting police agencies from procuring certain types of military equipment at all.

Local governments don’t have to wait for the state to act. They control their local police departments, and they can generally restrict or even ban militarization on their own initiative.

TAKE ACTION

To take action to push back against federal militarization of police in your state, click HERE.

]]>24016Small Town Resists Federal Gun Control, Shows the Path Forward for Libertyhttp://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/08/small-town-resists-federal-gun-control-shows-the-path-forward-for-liberty/
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:58:04 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=23761Everyday Americans, state lawmakers and local officials recently came together to protect a veteran threatened with having his guns confiscated by the feds. The peaceful demonstration shows exactly what happens when people stand up against the federal government – it backs down.

Although the federal government likes to gives off the impression that its authority is supreme, all it takes is a small group of folks saying no to them to show that’s not the case. A Breitbart report elaborates on how resistance effectively worked in Idaho:

On August 6, residents and Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler lined up outside the Priest River, Idaho, home of veteran John Arnold to prevent the Veterans Administration (VA) from taking away his guns…

Roughly “100 people” showed up, including Sheriff Wheeler. Those assembled waved an American flag, a Gadsen flag, and sang patriotic songs. Wheeler said: “I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and uphold the laws of Idaho. This seemed appropriate to show my support. I was going to make sure Mr. Arnold’s rights weren’t going to be breached.”

The individuals in this small Idaho community didn’t just rant and rave about the evils of federal oppression; they banded together and did something about it. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) wanted to essentiall revoke Arnold’s mosr basic freedoms because he supposedly couldn’t handle his own finances anymore. But when the people came together and stood up, the VA backed down.

Far from an isolated incident, this is part of a greater trend sweeping the country. In addition to the actions of individuals in Idaho, states such as Colorado, Alaska, Washington and Oregon have fully legalized marijuana in spite of federal law to the contrary. The feds have been virtually powerless to stop it. There is no reason why this principle cannot work on guns, health care, education or any other issue. The feds bluster around like they’re unstoppable, but when push comes to shove, their authority ultimately hinges on our compliance.

These principles reach all the way down to the local level. In Priest River, even state legislators and the county sheriff got in on the resistance. Making federal overreach a rallying cry brings freedom-minded individuals together from both the private and public sectors. It can also gain media attention, awaken people to their rights, and resonate up to the state level. This demonstrates the way to push back with effectiveness – not politely asking Washington D.C. to respect our rights.

The lesson to be learned in this case is to follow in the footsteps of the people of Priest River. Simply refuse to comply with the federal government’s unconstitutional acts. They will ultimately crumble under their own weight. Saying, “No!” can make all the difference in the world. Just ask Rosa Parks. Noncompliance creates a powerful check and balance necessary in the American system. After all, James Madison himself advised in Federalist #46 a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union,” as the way to stop unpopular federal acts.

Join us, and help us to cultivate non-compliance with unlawful federal mandates in your state!

]]>23761Feds Would Need Permission from Sheriffs in Bill Passed by Arizona Senate Committeeshttp://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/02/feds-would-need-permission-from-sheriffs-in-bill-passed-by-arizona-senate-committees/
Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:16:02 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=22147PHOENIX (Feb. 11, 2015) An Arizona bill that would require most federal agents to get the county sheriff’s permission before making an arrest, or conducting a search or seizure has passed through two committees in the state Senate this week.

SB1384 declares that “the county sheriff is the senior and most authoritative law enforcement officer in the county,” and formally places most federal law enforcement officers under the sheriff’s jurisdiction.

A federal employee who is not certified as a peace officer in this state pursuant to section 13-3875 may not make an arrest, search or seizure in this state without written permission from the sheriff or sheriff’s designee of the county in which the arrest, search or seizure will occur.

Yesterday. the Senate Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility Committee passed the bill with a 4-2 party-line vote and one member not voting. Today, the Public Safety, Military and Technology Committee approved the bill with a 3-2 vote. Republican Sen. John Kavanagh joined with one Democrat to vote no against three Republicans who voted yes. One additional Democrat was recorded as not-voting and a no vote would have killed the bill, 3-3.

The legislation does carve out some exceptions, including allowing arrests or searches that takes place on federal property, if the federal employee witnesses a crime that requires immediate arrest, a pursuit into the state, and for customs and border inspection agents.

The sheriff or sheriff’s designee may refuse permission for any reason considered sufficient.

Any federal employee violating the law would be subject to prosecution on the following grounds:

1. Kidnapping, if an arrest or attempted arrest occurs.

2. Trespass, if a search or attempted search occurs.

3. Theft, if a seizure or attempted seizure occurs.

4. An applicable homicide offense, if loss of life occurs.

5. Any other applicable criminal offense prescribed in title 13.

This legislation has two important functions. First it serves notice to the federal government that its authorities operate in Arizona with oversight, and reaffirms the sovereignty of the state. Secondly, it puts the county sheriff in the position to protect the rights and liberties of Arizona citizens from federal overreach.

The Constitution limits the authority of the federal government to specific enumerated powers, leaving all others to the states and their people. As a result, federal law enforcement officers may only exercise authority flowing from those powers. Any action taken by a federal law enforcement officer outside of those powers breaks the law. For example, the Constitution delegates no drug enforcement power to the federal government. Therefore, the DEA has no legitimate authority to conduct a raid on a medical marijuana clinic operating legally within a state.

The Arizona bill creates a check on federal power through the county sheriffs. With the feds required to notify the local authorities, the sheriff can conceivably exercise the option to stop unwarranted action before it happens, creating a layer of protection for the Arizona citizen.

“The idea that power should be checked and balanced serves as a cornerstone in the American political system,” TAC communications director Mike Maharrey said. “Federal law enforcement officers have acted with immunity, exercising unwarranted powers, for far too long. Just read the news stories about armed agents raiding Amish dairy operations because some poor old farmer commits the horrible crime of selling raw milk. This bill reestablishes the primacy of sheriff in Arizona and puts in place a mechanism to protect the average Arizonian. Who can argue that isn’t a good thing?”

SB1384 will next need to clear the Rules Committee before moving on to the full Senate for consideration.

]]>22147Missouri Legislator Introduces Bill to Require Sheriff Escort for Feds Serving Warrantshttp://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/03/missouri-introduces-bill-to-require-sheriff-escort-for-feds-serving-warrants/
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/03/missouri-introduces-bill-to-require-sheriff-escort-for-feds-serving-warrants/#respondThu, 06 Mar 2014 04:08:15 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=19271A bill mandating federal agents have the county sheriff accompany them while serving warrants has been introduced in the state of Missouri.

Senate Bill 776 (SB776) was introduced on Jan. 27 by State Sen. Brian Nieves (R-26). The summary of the bill states that “before serving a warrant issued by a United States Court, the federal agent must be accompanied by the sheriff, or his or her designee, of the county where the warrant is to be served.”

SB776 applies to state law enforcement as well. The text of the bill states, “Prior to serving any warrant in the state of Missouri, all state law enforcement agencies shall notify the sheriff of the county in which the warrant is to be served and proceed with the service of the warrant only if accompanied by the sheriff or the sheriff’s designee.”

If passed, this measure would provide a new check against overwrought government power. Sheriffs or their designees are required to file a report of every instance where a warrant is served. If a warrant is served without meeting the conditions of the bill, a Class A misdemeanor is assigned to the offenders.

A movement has emerged in recent years that has re-emphasized the role of the sheriff in enforcing the Constitution. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) is headed by Sheriff Mack, a vocal proponent of state nullification and a friend to the Tenth Amendment Center. They promote the idea that sheriffs are the first line of defense against tyranny in the homeland and duty bound to resist unconstitutional orders.

“We are going to train and vet them all, state by state, to understand and enforce the constitutionally protected Rights of the people they serve, with an emphasis on State Sovereignty and local autonomy,” Mack said on his CSPOA website. “Then these local governments will issue our new Declaration to the Federal Government regarding the abuses that we will no longer tolerate or accept.”

If enough sheriffs can be alerted to the threat that excessive government power poses to freedom by this brave effort, SB776 can have a profoundly positive impact on curbing federal overreach and police abuses. It has been moved to the General Laws Committee where it will need to be passed by a majority before it is taken to the Senate for a full vote.

]]>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/03/missouri-introduces-bill-to-require-sheriff-escort-for-feds-serving-warrants/feed/019271Sheriffs would come first if new Oklahoma bill passeshttp://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/sheriffs-would-come-first-if-new-oklahoma-bill-passes/
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/sheriffs-would-come-first-if-new-oklahoma-bill-passes/#commentsMon, 17 Feb 2014 04:38:26 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=19041In a move that would bolster the power of the highest elected law enforcement officer in the US, the county sheriff, Senator Dahm has introduced SB1736. After its initial first then second reading it was referred to the Public Safety Committee it simultaneously picking up two cosponsors Representative Echols (principal House author) and Representative Turner.

The county sheriff on being sworn into office takes an oath to not only the US Constitution, but to the state constitution, not only uphold the constitutions and laws but also protect and defend the residents of his county. As the elected law enforcement officer of the people of his county, he has a responsibility to the citizens of his county. If SB1736 is passed will not be circumvented from doing his job by outside federal agents.

“A federal employee who is not designated by the laws of this state as an Oklahoma peace officer may not make an arrest, search or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search or seizure shall occur…”

There are exceptions for federal lands, “close pursuit or customs and immigration”, that the subject in question is part of the sheriff’s office.

“The county sheriff or designee of the sheriff may refuse permission for any reason that the sheriff or designee considers sufficient.”

If the federal officer who wants to exercise an exception listed in the bill must do so to the states Attorney General.

“The request may be in letter form, either typed or handwritten, but shall be countersigned with the original signature of the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff or by the attorney general, to constitute valid permission. The permission is valid for forty-eight (48) hours after it is signed.”

This bill has what many refer to as “teeth” when it comes to violation of its provisions and those can clearly be seen in the following section:

“An arrest, search or seizure or attempted arrest, search or seizure in violation of this act is unlawful, and individuals involved shall be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The individuals involved shall also be charged with any other applicable criminal offenses.”

ACTION ITEMS

For Oklahoma Residents: Contact your State Senator HERE and respectfully demand that they support and co-sponsor SB1736 to lay out a clear and precise delineation of authority of law enforcement in the states counties.

Contact your State Representative and urge them to co-sponsor the legislation in the State House. You can find their contact information by clicking HERE.

For Other States: Call your legislators and demand that they follow the lead of Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire and other states by introducing a bill that would legalize marijuana. You can find your legislators contact information by clicking HERE.

]]>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/sheriffs-would-come-first-if-new-oklahoma-bill-passes/feed/119041Arizona Action Alert: Help County Sheriffs Stop Unconstitutional Federal Actshttp://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/arizona-action-alert-help-county-sheriffs-stop-unconstitutional-federal-acts/
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/02/arizona-action-alert-help-county-sheriffs-stop-unconstitutional-federal-acts/#respondSat, 08 Feb 2014 12:18:02 +0000http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=18970Two bills requiring Federal Agents to check with the County Sheriff before conducting business in Arizona are currently moving through the Arizona legislature. These Sheriffs First and Sheriff Permission bills are meant to put restrictions on how Federal officials conduct business in Arizona. The bills are based on the premise that elected Sheriffs are directly accountable to the people and should be the chief law enforcement officer of the County. SB1093 (Sheriffs First) was approved 4-3 in the Senate Public Safety Committee last week. The bill would amend Section 1. Title 11, chapter 3, article 2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes by adding the following:

A. Any federal agency that comes into a county to conduct authorized business shall register its presence with and present a warrant that complies with the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States to the county sheriff. The sheriff may impose a fee on the federal agency for completing the registration application.

B. Notwithstanding any other law, a federal agency that registers with and presents a warrant to the county sheriff pursuant to subsection a of this section shall forward all monies collected as a result of fines, fees or penalties imposed by the agency on a person, business or industry within the county to the county board of supervisors. The board of supervisors shall immediately forward fifty per cent of the monies to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund.

While this bill has passed its first committee, it still needs to be approved by the rules committee. Please contact your State Senator and urge them to support SB1093 when it comes up for a vote.

A similar bill SB1290 (Sheriff Permission) has been referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. This bill will require Federal agents to get written permission from a County Sheriff before they can conduct a search or seizure or make an arrest.

OUR ACTION IS NEEDED ON THIS BILL NOW. It doesn’t matter where in Arizona you live, take these actions today.

2. Call the rest of the committee members. Be strong, but respectful. Urge each of them to take action to move the bill forward and vote YES on SB1290. If they do not commit to a YES vote, ask them why. If they’re undecided, let them know you’ll call back in a few days. If you get their voice-mail, leave a message. A phone call has 10x the impact of an email.
Senator Andrea Dalessandro (D) — (602) 926-5342
Senator Steve Gallardo (D) — (602) 926-5830
Senator Barbara McGuire (D) — (602) 926-5836

3. Call Back – any NO or UNDECIDED – in 3-4 days. Ask if they’ve had a chance to review the legislation and what their opposition might be. Comment below or contact us with any information you receive.

5. Write a letter to the editor Look up your local newspaper and submit a letter to the editor voicing your support for SB1093 and SB1290. Following strong legal principles, it’s essential that Arizona no longer help the federal government enforce its unconstitutional laws. Passing SB1093 and SB1290 will make that happen.

Today the CSPOA learned that the Missouri Sheriff’s Association “Board” voted to oppose a strong and correct piece of legislation (HB436) in an effort to override the Governor’s veto of a bill already passed by a substantial majority of MO legislators. The MO legislature was absolutely correct in doing so and was actually doing their job to keep unlawful federal gun control statutes off the backs of Missourians!

James Madison said, “We can safely rely on the disposition of State Legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

We should be able to depend on Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, County Commissioners, and all other local officials to do the same; erect barriers against tyranny and DC corruption. The federal government is out of control and local officials have no obligation to go along with it, quite the contrary. If we do oppose federal usurpations then the feds might just retaliate by cutting federal funding for local programs. What does that make local leaders who compromise liberty to keep federal grants coming in?

We would like to commend the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association for mentioning the importance of their oath of office, but they have it entirely backwards. Opposing gun control and keeping the federal government (Biden and Obama) from shoving more of their unconstitutional agenda down the throats of all Missourians, is exactly what our Sheriffs are sworn to do. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association endorses HB 436 and applauds the legislature for their courageous stand to nullify any effort to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. All law enforcement officers should be on the side of the people and the Constitution. The opposing side is made up of Nixon, Biden, and Obama and a bunch of other politicians who want us to believe that the Constitution no longer applies today. The CSPOA stands firmly against all such propaganda.

Sheriff Richard Mack (ret) was one of the two plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case Printz v. United States.
Sheriffs Mack and Printz prevailed in that case, resulting in the court ruling that states could refuse to participate in federal gun control efforts. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Printz factored heavily in the portion of the Obamacare ruling that stated the federal government could not force the states to expand Medicaid or punish them with sanctions if they didn’t expand existing Medicaid programs.

###

ACTION ITEMS FOR MISSOURI RESIDENTS

It’s essential that you call your state rep and state senator to urge support of this legislation immediately. Even if you’re leaving a message overnight, make the call.